Conflict in Planning

Planning and conflict go hand in hand. The endless feuds between a community and a developer often leave a sense of pessimism surrounding the achievement of a positive outcome. So why does this happen? Surely a community must understand the need for their area to progress with a changing society; to modernise and diversify, while the developer must appreciate a community’s concerns for the potential of their neighbourhood to spiral out of control and become the next expansion of the soulless concrete jungle that is the city. But this is not how it has always been. Indeed, planners did somewhat enjoy a period of paternalistic planning environments whereby government arms would create a plan with little thought in to the social repercussions it would result in. Faced with an ever increasing sense of domination, communities naturally wanted to have their say.

In times where a community now has a voice and, arguably, an important influence in planning decisions, the planner must now convene on matters of escalating conflicts between the community and the developer. As the developer strives for economic advantage and market access with their ideal progression (or exploitation) of public resource, the local community will often feel threatened and endeavour to have their surrounds remain the same, or progress in their own image. 

The rhetoric used within the development and government world can often seem confusing and alien to the average community member. Therefore, the planner is available to consult with the community, to explain in detail the planning boundaries and regulation that exists for both themselves and the developer. I believe this is an important role to exist as the community needs to be informed if they ultimately are to be affected. But I wonder, with the plethora of other roles the planner seemingly posesses, should a community liaison be one of them?